This is your Sequoia touch-screen voting machine with Pac-Man hacked onto it without disturbing any of the "tamper-evident" seals supposedly meant to protect it from hackers...

Any questions?...

Sequoia's voting machines, used in some 20% of U.S. elections, employ Intellectual Property (IP) still owned by a Venezuelan firm tied to Hugo Chavez. Sequoia itself is now owned by a Canadian firm called Dominion. (Though Dominion, like Sequoia itself before it, lied about the continuing Venezuelan/Chavez ties in its recent announcement of the acquisition, as detailed exclusively by The BRAD BLOG, to little notice, in June.)

The Pac-Man hack onto the Sequoia/Dominion voting machine was revealed this week. It was accomplished without breaking any of the "tamper-evident" seals that voting machine companies and election officials claim are used to ensure nobody can physically hack into them without being discovered.

"We received the machine with the original tamper-evident seals intact," the hackers from Princeton and University of Michigan report. "The software can be replaced without breaking any of these seals, simply by removing screws and opening the case."

Here's a video of Pac-Man running on the hacked Sequoia touch-screen voting machine...

This particular Sequoia DRE (Direct Recording Electronic) voting machine model is known as the AVC Edge. It used to be described on the Sequoia website and promotional materials as "tamperproof." It has been hacked previously and has failed time and again in recent elections, even though election officials continue to force voters to use the machines.

For example, the AVC Edge miscounted votes in New Jersey in 2008, the same election during which the systems also failed to even boot up when polls opened at a Hoboken precinct, forcing voters, including the state's then-Governor John Corzine, to wait some 45 minutes before they could cast votes on them at all. Whether those votes were recorded accurately as per the voters' intent, once the machines finally booted up, is scientifically impossible to know. Use of any touch-screen voting machine is the equivalent of a 100% faith-based election. No votes cast during an election --- none --- can be verified as having been accurately recorded on such systems. Ever.

J. Alex Halderman and Ariel J. Feldman, the academic computer science and security experts who hacked the Sequoia machine, this time with Pac-Man, report that, "In 2008, the AVC Edge was used in 161 jurisdictions with almost 9 million registered voters, including large parts of Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia."

As first reported by The BRAD BLOG in 2006, Halderman and Feldman previously hacked a touch-screen voting machine made by Diebold Election Systems, Inc. (which became Premier Elections Solutions, which was then also purchased by Dominion, just like Sequoia). They hacked the Diebold/Premier system with a virus that was able to pass itself from one machine to the next and flip the results of an entire election with little chance of detection. That hack was demonstrated, among other places, live on Fox "News" shortly after it was announced. (Watch the video here.)

Short of adding "tamper-evident" seals to these machines --- the same seals that went undisturbed when Pac-Man was hacked onto the Sequoia AVC Edge machine --- very little has changed since 2006, and most of the same hackable (and often 100% unverifiable) electronic voting systems are still in use today, in both primary elections this year (such as the one where the unknown, unemployed, campaign-less Alvin Greene was said to have defeated four-term state legislator and circuit court Judge Vic Rawl for the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination), as well as in the general elections this November.

The voting machines not made by Sequoia, as used in the other 80% of jurisdictions in the U.S., work largely the same way, and are largely equally as hackable.

Here are details and more pictures on the Pac-Man hack fom the Diebold/Virus and Sequoia/Pac-Man hackers themselves, though the way they explained it all on their YouTube posting when publishing the video above, tells you just about all that you need to know...

This is the Sequoia AVC Edge touch-screen DRE voting machine. In 2008, it was used in jurisdictions with almost 9 million voters. Alex Halderman and Ari Feldman replaced the voting software with Pac-Man. They did this in three afternoons, without breaking any tamper-evident seals. It would be easy to modify the software to steal votes, but that's been done before, and Pac-Man is more fun.

My brother does high tech stuff for the Defense Department, and while he can't even tell me what he is working on, he says give him a laptop and a cell phone and he'll program any electronic voting machine in the country to give you any result you want.

I hope this visually impressive stunt will finally make it into the media, and finally show the public that touch screen voting machines can't be trusted!

However, I think the video can be improved. Firstly, it would be great if you would show how fast this hack can be done (without showing any details), to expose the vulnerability of the machines. And then, why the effing keyboard? That machine has a touch screen! Why not control PacMan by tapping on the borders of the screen?

Thinking more about this, for a deeper impression on the public another video would be great, using humor for a more widespread distribution. How about this possible script:

Typical polling station scenery. An average Joe Sixpack enters to cast his vote. When he moves towards the booth, he suddenly freezes and shouts: "What the BEEP"! Camera moves and shows PacMan running on the voting machine.

While showing PacMan running on demo mode, big title: "What if that guy had been up to no good?". Fading into the first scene, showing average Joe Sixpack entering the booth with the usual voting screen on the machine. Camera close up, showing Joe is trying to vote for the next president, selections are Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy, and Adolf Stalin. Joe taps on, say, Reagan, but for a splitsecond, the machine highlights the Adolf Stalin selection, showing then the message "vote cast".

Fair election?
Fraudulent "election"?
Republican?
Democrat?
I'm beginning to think it really doesn't matter any more, who's in or how the vote was obtained as it seems they're ALL corporate ass-kissers, and the deck is stacked against us.
Democracy, my ass.

Listen, if you get physical access to the machine for some length of time, you can change it's behavior. The simple fact of the matter is that the voting machine needs to be treated with the same security as a box of paper ballots.

If you fear an inside job, it's really no different than a Chicago-style election with the paper ballots being thrown away or altered.

The machine fix is already in place. How else would the rediculous rant " the republicans will take over in november" be true? We need a big sign that says "Do you think we are stupid?" hung in front of every voting place.
The Republicans caused the problems. The Republicans obstructed any efforts to solve the problems. The Republicans profited from the problems. The Republicans are making insane accusations that they cannot believe themselves. Why would any sane person vote them into office

"Listen, if you get physical access to the machine for some length of time, you can change it's behavior."
Indeed. And the access to these sensitive machines aren't secured at all. It's much too easy to come close to them, at the unsecured storages and even in the booth. And the unauthorized opening of the case won't be noticed, since there aren't even some seals which would be broken. So, the voting machines CAN be hacked, with self deleting code there CAN'T be any evidence of the manipulation, and this IS an important issue that the public should know about!

This pac-man demo speaks for itself, and his presence in the argument is extraneous at best.

No, unfortunately, it's not, for reasons that I have only long enough to quickly bullet-point for you here:

* No private company, whether tied to Hugo Chavez or anybody else, should have that kind of private, proprietary control over our public elections. Whether it's Chavez with Sequoia/Dominion or Walden O'Dell with Diebold/Premier or anybody else.

* Both Seqouia and now Dominion who has purchased them, have lied about the Smartmatic (firm tied to Chavez) ties. No matter who or what they lied about, they both lied. And a private voting machine company that lies must be called on it.

* The ties to Chavez were the ONLY thing that brought many Rightwingers to the issue of Election Integrity in the first place. They didn't give a damn when the CEO of Diebold wrote a fundraising letter to Republicans promising to deliver Ohio to Bush in '04, or when he gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to them. They ONLY cared when Chavez was brought into the picture, and it succeeded in bringing in Lou Dobbs, Fox "News" and many others who never gave a damn about EI previously. If that's what it takes to make folks understand --- whether on Right or Left or anywhere else --- the serious NON-partisan concerns about election integrity, then so be it.

Listen, if you get physical access to the machine for some length of time, you can change it's behavior. The simple fact of the matter is that the voting machine needs to be treated with the same security as a box of paper ballots.

Right. But it cannot be. For one, every election officials has "physical access to the machine for some length of time" and can therefore "change it's behavior".

More disturbingly, however, election officials don't need physical access to ANY voting machine, since all they need to do is change values in either the central tabulating software or on the programming of the ballot memory cards before the election has even begun.

Finally, while a box of paper ballots can be 100% transparent (visible at every moment from open of polls to closing when ballots should be taken out in front of everyone and counted publicly), no voting machine (computer) can EVER offer that kind of complete, 100%, citizen-overseeable transparency. Ever. None.

If you fear an inside job, it's really no different than a Chicago-style election with the paper ballots being thrown away or altered.

Wrong. Entirely. If you learn anything about transparent hand-counting, you can learn how it is done 100% in full view of the public, making "Chicago-style election" gaming impossible, or as close to impossible as "impossibilities" can be.

I'm sorry you're unfamiliar with the facts behind this important issue and choose to knee-jerk instead of inform yourself.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Sounds like you would like us to do that, indeed. We won't. So, sorry. If you don't care for that you can, um, move along. See ya, Bucky!

This statistical analysis of Oregon’s voting history provides evidence that the vote-by-mail system introduced in 1998 has been a success. In 2000, it closely matched the national recorded vote, as expected. In 2004, Kerry’s recorded vote share in Oregon was close to the pre-election poll and the unadjusted state exit poll national aggregate (52-47%). But it was 3% higher than his recorded national and average battleground shares.

Bush improved on his 2000 recorded vote share not only in the battleground states, but also in solidly Democratic New York. But Oregon went against the grain and shifted from Gore to Kerry. Kerry won Oregon by 51.4-47.2%. His margin improved by 3.7% over Gore, primarily from his 65-13% edge in returning Nader voters and 59-39% margin in new voters. The pre-election National, Oregon and Battleground polls, adjusted for undecided voters, projected that Kerry would win by 51-48%. Post-election state and national exit polls indicated that Kerry won by 3-7%. The True Vote model indicates that he won by 53.3-45.7% (nearly 10 million votes) assuming a zero net defection of returning Gore and Bush voters.

Did Oregon’s mail-in system miscount the votes? To believe it did, you must also believe that Bush did in fact win an honest election and that the national and state exit polls that indicated Kerry won were wrong. But what if the exit polls were correct and votes were miscounted in the other non-paper ballot which used electronic voting machines, punched cards or levers? Then one would then have to conclude that Oregon’s vote-by-mail system worked – and the others did not.

If these unauditable EVs are used in our Elections, we can kiss our Republic fairwell! Our Govt will become a wholly owned Subsidiary of Corporate America&thanks to SCOTUS, they'll have no legal restraints that limit the amount of Cash they can use to defeat the Will of the Voters! We'll be a Fascist Oligarchy & the Police State Dream of the RWWNJs will be fully realized! Welcome to Serfdom & Slavery! If we don't Fight this with all our Might, we'll be an Autocracy with a Dictator at the Helm!
Is this the Nation I want to leave my Grand Children? Absolutely Not!

I should not have to trust in anybody's statistical analysis to determine if an election was recorded accurately, as per the voters' intent, not even you, despite my admiration for your work and tenacity.

As to Vote-by-Mail elections, I stand strongly by my assessment that they are a *terrible* idea for democracy, based on a number of demonstrable points --- several of which are quickly and neatly summarized for you here: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6003

You would think that a country that prides itself on its democratic voting system and goes out of its way to berate other nations voting systems, would clean up our broken, corrupt and currently manipulated by untrustworthy corporations.

place. They didn't give a damn when the CEO of Diebold wrote a fundraising letter to Republicans promising to deliver Ohio to Bush in '04, or when he gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to them. They ONLY cared when Chavez was brought into the picture, and it succeeded in bringing in Lou Dobbs, Fox "News" and many others who never gave a damn about EI previously. If that's what it takes to make folks understand --- whether on Right or Left or anywhere else --- the serious NON-partisan concerns about election integrity, then so be it

They aren't concerned about the non-partisan aspects of election integrity, they are just concerned if they think that someone's line it up against them. They're just as partisan as ever. When they think they've got this cornered, again, they'll be right back at it. C'mon, Brad, you're smarter than that.

Yeah, Dawson - and it's not as if the U$ didn't know better. After WWII the U$ forced the Germans and the Japanese to become domocracies, with elections using hand-marked paper ballots that were to be counted by hand in public. So, perhaps the U$ simply has a touch of
Waldheimer's Disease (you know, you get old and forget you used to be a Nazi, and in the SS, no less!), but it seems more likely that this seemingly insane move to Mickey Mouse elections was an integral part of a coldly thought-out coup, nothing less!

With all due respect, you have not addressed the essential points I have made in the statistical analysis. Perhaps you did not read the very extensive and thorough post which I linked to and only summarized here. The preliminary exit polls downloaded by Jonathan Simon on Election Day 2004 and exit poll analysis from Jonathan, Freeman and I helped to jumpstart the election activist movement and showed the extent of the fraud.

Let’s start with a basic premise. According to the unadjusted (and preliminary) exit polls, Kerry won the election. Since you agree that Bush stole the election, you must also agree that the exit polls were essentially correct. And therefore, one must consider them as powerful evidence in any analysis.

I agree with your comments about transparency and citizen oversight. But you must be aware that Oregonians are very satisfied with VBM.
The fact is only Oregon (and Washington which now has VBM) has made an effort to provide a reliable, accurate system. This is substantiated by the recorded (i.e. bogus) vote “swing” to Bush from 2000 to 2004. This is illustrated by a simple comparison of NY, Oregon and the Battleground states.

It is well-known that returning 2000 Nader voters defected to Kerry by 65-13% over Bush nationwide. Assume it was the same in NY.
Therefore, allocating Nader voters Kerry should have won by 63-36- assuming equal defection of returning Gore and Bush voters.
But more Bush voters defected to Kerry (10%) than Gore voters to Bush (8%).
Therefore, adjusting for the 2% net defection to Kerry, he won by 64-35% - exactly matching the unadjusted New York Exit Poll.

Election fraud reduced Kerry’s popular vote margin in NY by approximately 850,000.
Election fraud reduced Kerry’s popular vote margin in CA by approximately 950,000.
The two states contributed approximately 1.8 million (60%) of Bush’s 3 million national recorded vote margin.

Oregon
2000 recorded vote: 47.0 Gore - 46.5 Bush- 6.5 Nader/Other
Allocating returning 2000 Nader voters by the 65-13% to Kerry and he wins by a nearly identical 51.3-47.2 margin.
2004 recorded vote: 51.3 Kerry - 47.2 Bush- 1.5 Nader/Other
Of course, there was no exit poll in Oregon. But a final telephone poll indicated that Kerry had 52.2%.

Summary:
The analysis confirms what we all know: Bush stole the election in the Battleground states and padded his popular vote in the others.
Oregon’s 2000 recorded vote was very plausible.
The New York, California and Battleground recorded votes were not only implausible; they were impossible.

Therefore, how can you be critical of Oregon’s voting system?
You should give OR credit, just like you should Washington for following Oregon’s example.

Truthisall @27: The mere fact that "Oregonians are very satisfied with VBM" does not scientifically establish that the system accurately counted all lawfully cast votes.

I agree that Prof. Freeman presented a compelling statistical analysis in Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? but simply pointing to the fact that Oregon's vote was more in line with exit-polls than those in the "battleground states" analyzed by Prof. Freeman says no more than that the VBM system is superior to e-voting systems, which really doesn't say much. Not when there is no way to establish whether or not the vote counted by an e-voting system has any relationship to the votes that were actually cast.

(The mere fact that optical scan systems use paper is meaningless unless the paper ballots are actually hand-counted. Otherwise, you again rely on optical scan systems which scientific study-after-study reveals can be easily hacked. In most elections, no one counts the paper ballots from an optical scan election.)

Finally, as I am sure you are aware, the way Rove and friends have dealt with the embarrassment of those pesky exit-polls is to move to do away with them.

Here's a quote from a Daily Kos article surrounding the News Corp. Donation to the Republican Governors fund and the attempts to scrub any mention of this fact from Fox News or Wikipedia websites...
"The purpose of this diary was not to 'flood' the opposition--as correctly noted, it is not "majority rule". But to invite people to a debate that some with an agenda were hoping would just be swept under the rug."
When will they apply this same idea to election integrity issues?

Ernest, you said:
Truthisall @27: The mere fact that "Oregonians are very satisfied with VBM" does not scientifically establish that the system accurately counted all lawfully cast votes.

Ernest: I never said that what Oregonians say about there system has anything to do with the analysis. Of course it doesn't. I am quite surprised that you would even make that comment. It is putting words in my mouth. I only mentioned that they were very satisified with it.

Let me put it this way: How do voters in other states feel about their election systems?

You say:
I agree that Prof. Freeman presented a compelling statistical analysis in “Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?”, but simply pointing to the fact that Oregon's vote was more in line with exit-polls than those in the "battleground states" analyzed by Prof. Freeman says no more than that the VBM system is superior to e-voting systems, which really doesn't say much. Not when there is no way to establish whether or not the vote counted by an e-voting system has any relationship to the votes that were actually cast.

Ernest: You agree that Freeman’s analysis is compelling. So do I. Go to richardcharnin.com and read my book “Proving Election Fraud”. You also agree that the VBM system is superior to e-voting. But you don’t believe that says much? Of course it does. E-votes in the battleground states (DRE and Optical Scanner) enabled Bush to steal the election. Assuming that you agree Bush stole it, then it is obvious that he did so in FL, OH, CO, NM and IA and maybe one or two others. He padded his popular vote in big Democratic states like NY and CA, where he drastically cut Kerry’s margin. The two states provided 1.8 million (60%) of Bush’s 3 million recorded vote margin.

We know that e-votes were stolen. A good measure of the fraud is provided by the unadjusted state exit polls. The fact is that nearly 70% of the votes were cast on optical scanners and DREs. But that is irrelevant to the analysis. The goal is to compare Oregon’s voting system to the other battleground states (as well as NY and CA).

A simple way to do the comparison is to compare recorded vote share swing from 2000 to 2004. Nationally, Bush increased his margin by from -0.5% to 2.4%, or 2.9%. But Bush lost share in Oregon. Gore won it by 47.0-46.5%. Kerry won by 51.3-47.2%. That is plausible since Nader voters broke to Kerry by a 5-1 margin. If we allocate the returning Nader voters to Kerry and Bush, the adjusted shares exactly match the recorded shares. Oregon’s recorded 2004 vote share was must have accurate. Therefore, we must assume that VBM worked just fine.

On the other hand, vote shares in the Battleground states and NY were not plausible; one would have expected that Kerry would do better than Gore as he did in Oregon. But that did not happen.. In the battleground states, he lost share (as in Florida) or there was little or no change. The exit polls which showed Kerry winning virtually all the battleground states were way off the recorded votes. Kerry’s margin dropped to 18% in NY compared to 25% for Gore

How was voting done in the battleground states? They were a mix of DREs, optical scanners, punch cards and levers. Obviously the DRE and lever votes could not be verified since there were no paper ballots to count. But the optical scanned ballots weren’t hand-counted. Votes were stolen on all types of voting machines. To say there is no relationship between e-votes and the votes that were cast is a misnomer.

You said:
The mere fact that optical scan systems use paper is meaningless unless the paper ballots are actually hand-counted. Otherwise, you again rely on optical scan systems which scientific study-after-study reveals can be easily hacked. In most elections, no one counts the paper ballots from an optical scan election.

But Ernest, they were hand-counted in Oregon. And the hand-counts matched the machine counts. What more do you need?

You said:
Finally, as I am sure you are aware, the way Rove and friends have dealt with the embarrassment of those pesky exit-polls is to move to do away with them.

Ernest, that is so true. And we know why they don’t like those pesky exit polls, don’t we? Of course, in Oregon (and now Washington) there were no exit polls. There was a telephone poll and Kerry has 52.2%, very close to his recorded 51.3%.

Notice that the unadjusted 2008 exit polls have not been released. Obama had a recorded 56.7% share in Oregon and 52.9% nationally. It is clear that the 2004 vote-rigging algorithms were still in effect – just as they will be in the 2010 midterms.

While it is abhorrent for any foreign country having any sort of influence on our elections and that these voting machines are even in use in general, what is your problem with Hugo Chavez and the emphasis on the ownership by a country who's Democratically elected President was Overthrown with direct US intervention. For someone who purports to stand up for election integrity and Democracy, I find it disturbing you push this anti-Chavez propaganda.

Once again, a LABORATORY took apart a machine, worked on it, changed it, then offers their work as evidence that the machine can't be trusted.

All just in time for the mid-term elections.

About the AVC Edge: There are 8 torx head screws holding the cases together, Remove these and it allows the machine to break down into three rather LARGE components, plus a bunch of screws, locks and pieces... I watched our voting machine custodian do this when we replaced our batteries, the machine was spread all over a large table. Not easy, not "simple" and would certainly be noticeable! The diassembly/reassembly took close to 15 minutes per machine.

The "tamper evident" seals are there to hold the little plastic doors closed so the carts can't be removed... They DO NOT, nor were they designed to keep the machine from being completely disasembled.

Any computer geek can get any computer to play Pac-man, Ms Pac Man or even Donkey Kong...Given a few days, total access to a machine, unlimited tools, time and a budget.

The moral of the story is we don't let anyone near our Edge machines with a specialized screwdriver, and a computer, carrying a replacement Motherboard!

I think I'll write that into our security plan.

If I were going to attempt to screw up an election, I think a sledge hammer would accomplish the same thing! Geezzz

So, just so that I understand you correctly, you're saying that both you, the Radford, VA Registrar of Voters or your "voting machine custodian" could accomplish the hack described above and have it done in "close to 15 minutes"?

Nope, not in a million years.
I could break it, anyone could do that.
I don't have the expertise to plant a program or replace a motherboard with any type of reverse engineered coding.
The point was this, these hacks COULD NOT be accomplished during an election with Officers, observers, press, and voters in attendance.
It took these guys three days, and they presumably knew what they were doing in a laboratory setting.
Real world settings are quite different.
And so far no one has shown that a hack, on this machine, could be accomplished in just a couple of minutes, under observance, without additional equipment or input devices, without destroying the machine or taking it apart under the guise of simply being a voter.

so far no one has shown that a hack, on this machine, could be accomplished in just a couple of minutes, under observance, without additional equipment or input devices, without destroying the machine or taking it apart under the guise of simply being a voter.

Who said anything about "the guise of simply being a voter".

My question was, could you or your "voting machine custodian" or any other election insider accomplish this hack without being detected? (We'll presume you either have the skills, or someone instructed you or them on what to do.)

What measures are in place in Radford, VA to assure that nobody --- not you, your "voting machine custodian", or any other insiders, such as members of your election board --- cannot and have not done that?

Are there ANY such measures? Thanks in advance for your simple yes or no answer if you can provide it since your initial comment acknowledged that you (or your "voting machine custodian") COULD do it, if they wanted to and/or had the computer skills.

I think what Brad is trying to say here is that most of us are, in general, not so worried about a voter coming in to hack these machines, but rather an insider who has been bought off by "someone" to alter the election results wherever that person has unfettered access to the machines. A candidate who can, for example, afford to spend over $100 million of her own money to buy her way into office could in fact buy off a great many election officials and insiders to help make it happen as part of the game plan.

Please forgive the previous defensiveness.
Yes there are standards in place in the form of a voting machine security document. and physical security, a Locked, secure place for equipment. Limited access and only then with more than one individual.
However due to logistics and placement of my office, I am here alone MOST of the time. I'm certainly not thrilled with that scenario, but that's the hand I've been dealt. I'm the only full time employee of the elections department. But that's a different discussion.

This does indeed raise an interesting point that election insiders, do indeed have access to equipment. There are laws in place, of course that forbid and punish such activities, and there of course have been convictions and very harsh sentencing of such things.
As for me, I feel as though any individuals legal vote is more valuable than any amount of money offered. An illegal vote is worse than stealing money. YMMV.

Brad and I have had rather lengthy e-mail discussion of several points and principles.

I outlined a synopsis of the security of our machines, yet conceed that no amount of security is perfect.

There are only a few individuals who have access, but never alone. There is testing of the equipment and of course the security seals. There is always room for improvement.
I could suggest securing the case halves with locks, but someone would be responsible for the key, and that someone should not be trusted.

I feel that the greatest security we have is that during office hours the machines are locked and secured within public view, yet inaccessible any other time. It's all that can be offered.

The question you asked cannot be answered simply yes or no.
yes, it could be done.
no, I do not have the skills to do it.
yes, the custodian could do it
no, he does not have unsupervised access
yes, the electoral board handles the machines on election day
no, they simply deliver the unopened/ sealed machines within a specified time period.

While we're delving into hypotheticals,
Could someone break into the office, cut the cable locks, override the alarms, disassemble all the machines, insert malicious code, put them back together, restack, replace the locks with identical properly keyed locks so as not to be noticed? Yes. I suppose someone could.

Could someone coordinate this activity within each locality within a state, for all voting machines to reach the same conclusion? Or even a majority of voting machines? Yes, that's theoretically possible too.

I could suggest securing the case halves with locks, but someone would be responsible for the key, and that someone should not be trusted.

Of course they shouldn't. Which is the entire point. You shouldn't be trusted --- or, more politely, you shouldn't have to ask your voters to trust you, they shouldn't be required to do so --- nor should the Election Commissioners, nor anybody with such insider access to elections.

And there is no reason anybody has to trust such folks, in a properly run election, as you and I have been discussing via email (hopefully I'll have more on all of that for everyone else soon).

I feel that the greatest security we have is that during office hours the machines are locked and secured within public view, yet inaccessible any other time. It's all that can be offered.

No. It's not. Not by a longshot. Don't know how many voters there are in Radford, VA, but you can multiply them by two --- for each eyeball --- and allow that many eyeballs to oversee every step of the election. You can even increase the number by allowing them to bring their own video cameras to record every step of the counting. It's easy, simple and cheap.

But as you use DREs and optical-scanners, both of which are impossible to allow citizens to oversee the counting, you will continue to have questions about security and accuracy.

You can, indeed, "offer" much more of both. As I noted in our email, there are many guides out there, based on years of experience, of how to do exactly that.

Could someone coordinate this activity within each locality within a state, for all voting machines to reach the same conclusion? Or even a majority of voting machines? Yes, that's theoretically possible too.

Possible, but unlikely, since the more folks required for any vote-rigging conspiracy, the easier it is to detect. That's why security by obscurity doesn't work, though that is the premise on which concealed vote counting on electronic systems is built.

Add all of those eyeballs and video cameras I mentioned above, and it'd be damned near impossible to game any election, ever, and everyone in town will be able to rest comfortably in that fact.

wow tracy is famous..i was looking for an election web site for radford...have not found that yet,but i am sure tracy can provide a link for precinct by precinct results but i ran across this......
Radford, Virginia – After learning that local election officials have rejected numerous applications of eligible students who attempted to register using their valid university addresses, voting rights advocates at the Brennan Center for Justice, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia wrote yesterday to the Registrar of the City of Radford, Virginia, urging that office to remedy the situation so that eligible students at Radford University who were wrongly rejected can cast ballots that will be counted on Election Day. The letter noted that Radford Registrar Tracy Howard has delayed or refused to register students providing university addresses as their home address, in some cases rejecting such registrations outright, by requiring such applicants to meet additional and confusing registration requirements. The affected student applications number in the hundreds if not the thousands.

There's only ONE full time election registrar in Radford, VA? Not even a feigned balanced pair of REP and DEM? Could it be that maybe because of these new spiffy EXPENSIVE machines that more staff is unaffordable? How convenient.